REVIEW: Wisconsin Moderns at Dean Jensen

An online journal about visual art, the urban landscape and design. Mary Louise Schumacher, the Journal Sentinel's art and architecture critic, leads the discussion and a community of writers contribute to the dialogue.

Wisconsin’s art scene during the second World War was “quite a different place than it is today,” writes Dean Jensen in his catalogue for his gallery’s current show, “Wisconsin Moderns.” The state’s art museums displayed mostly “paintings of grazing sheep and beer-drinking burghers,” he tells us.

The conclusion: In an environment such as this, it’s a wonder our state produced any modern art at all. But we did, and while the show does not include our most famous Wisconsin-born modern, Georgia O’Keeffe, it does provide an excellent glimpse into the work of six prominent painters who all achieved varying degrees of success as “moderns” during their lifetimes.

For art historians, the term “modern art” can refer to anything made from the late 19th century through the 1970s. But in practical terms it tends to be applied to a group of prominent artists, mostly painters, who in the 1940s and `50s began to break down traditional notions of art and experiment with abstraction. (Think of Picasso, for example, who would have celebrated his birthday on Monday.) Put simply, it was a new art form that was a response to technology and modern life. »Read Full Blog Post

While we strive for a lively and vigorous debate of the issues, we do not tolerate name calling, foul language or other inappropriate behavior. Please see our discussion guidelines and terms of use for more information.

While we do our best to moderate comments, we do not screen comments before they are posted. If you see a comment that violates our guidelines, please use the "Report Abuse" link to notify us of the issue.

I truly wish I could have seen the exhibition - seems like a poignant, beautiful and important show. At the expanse of seeming art-historically geekish, I would like to clarify a few terms in Stacey's review. I believe it is important, especially for the ways we understand and misunderstand history. Indeed, as Stacey writes, the term "modern art" seems very flexible and truly encompasses a wide variety of phenomena, which were "response[s] to technology and modern life." However, what Stacey refers to as modern art in "practical terms," i.e. term "applied to a group of prominent artists, mostly painters, who in the 1940s and '50s began to break down traditional notions of art and experiment with abstraction" needs to be unpacked. What Stacey seems to refer to is a particular, American vein of Modernism - as understood and theorized by the critic Clement Greenberg and canonized and disseminated by MoMA under the direction of Alfred Baar. It is important to remember that this was not the first group of painters to experiment with abstraction (Picasso, as well as another crucial figure, Kandinsky, both came decades before; more over, Picasso was only "good enough" for Greenberg to be a crucial building block in the progressive development of the medium of painting); however, the work of this group (best embodied by Pollock at the peak of his career) fulfilled the narrowly conceived conditions imposed on art by Greenberg. Those, who did not and whose art diverged from this programmatic, formalist understanding of "modern" most often slipped between the stools of art history; their work has been patiently "excavated" by the younger generations of historians and curators in the last 10-15 years or so, and that's precisely why Dean Jensen's show is such a wonderful contribution to what can be seen in the "public sphere."And, if you think my necessarily brief response is too full of art historical lingo and would like more explanation, ask me. These terms ARE important.

It should be noted that Stacey's original copy had a longer explication of the term modern in it, which I trimmed. I think what we sought to do here was signal to the reader that there are precise (and still contested/evolving) definitions of the term and also its common usage, without slowing the review down with a history lesson. One has to pick one's moments for such things. As much as I love a good history lesson. Please note, too, Stacey's reference to Picasso. In any case, I think you are correct -- terms are important.

Greetings from the adopted home of Picasso, Barcelona!I am not insisting that the review should be a history lesson, however, I do not think that the terms modern and modernism are either contested or evolving. Certainly, the "Greenbergian modernism" is not. And, I also believe all that can be put into words precisely enough, for example with a phrase "American Modernist painters," without loading the text with specialized references. On the other hand, to put Picasso in parentheses behind the phrase "a group of prominent artists ... who in the 1940s and `50s began to break down traditional notions of art etc." is highly misleading and historically inaccurate, because Picasso certainly had very little to do with that group, while the influence of other European artists, such as Miro or Hans Hoffman was of far greater effects. End of "boring" history lesson for tonight. I hope that with a temporary home my own writing will become more prolific. Cheers to all Art City-ers!

It is not worth fussing over, but for the record you can find writings which credit the onset of "Modern painting" to a great variety of eras and artists including (beyond those already mentioned): Manet, Leonardo, Giotto. It all depends on the writer's point of view and their context.

Dorota, I'll have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. There is a vast difference between being inaccurate and putting terms in a more general context -- to avoid imprecision, in fact. The use of "American modernist painters" could be insufficient and misleading as well. In any case, this is precisely why we didn't go down this path in the piece.

Oh, dear, dear, dear, Michael. I hate to break the news, especially during the holiday season, but I'm afraid you better schedule an appointment with Stein Optical. In fact there are five Holty pieces in the show, three paintings, two drawings.

E-mail Newsletter

Keep up with the art scene and trends in urban design with art and architecture critic Mary Louise Schumacher. Every week, you'll get the latest reviews, musings on architecture and her picks for what to do on the weekends.